The International Nazarene Beit Din has examined in depth the case which this
accuser(s) have brought against Lew White. We have also examined in depth Lew
White's defense. The International Nazarene Beit Din makes the following conclusions:

First of all the Nazarene halacha requires that a matter with which a person is
charged with be a "sin" (Mt. 18:15) and sin is defined as "transgression of the
Torah" (1Jn. 3:4).

Secondly by Nazarene halacha, in order to have standing to bring a charge
against another, one must be the victim of their sin (Mt. 18:15).

On the charge of "SELLING THE WORD FOR PROFIT":

The Beit Din finds no Torah command anywhere, including the passages given by
the accuser, which forbid the selling of Scriptures or Scriptural teachings for
a profit. The accuser has failed to demonstrate that the Torah forbids "selling
the word for profit". The passages cited by the accuser (Exo 18:21; Lev 25:35;
Eze 18:4-13; Eze 22:12-16; Joh 2:14-16) do not state that one may not sell the
word for a profit.

But what if one shall say:

Buy the truth, and sell it not;
also wisdom, instruction and understanding.
(Prov. 23:23)

This passage is often quoted to "prove" that Bibles and theological books,
tapes, DVDs etc. should be given away for free and never sold.

The passage does not specify any given type of truth. If we interpret it to mean
that we should not sell Bibles and theological books, it would also forbid
selling books containing any other truth. Books on
mathematics, physics and truthful history would also be covered. Yet those who
wrongly interpret the passage do not say that Math teachers should work for
free.

So what does the passage mean? The passage is saying that "truth" should be
treated as a commodity that we are only in the market to
buy (obtain) and never in the market to sell (let go of).

In fact Scripture tells us plainly that those who labor in the Word as "worthy
of their hire". Teachers of Scripture truth are NOT slaves, they are as entitled
to be paid for their time, effort, labor, service and productions as anyone
else.

But again what if one shall say:

or nothing you have received,
for nothing you will give.
(Mt. 10:8)

Sadly for years this passage has been quoted out of context and misused by many
to "prove" that those in the ministry should not receive community support for
our efforts.

In fact the verse in question is, in context, saying exactly the opposite of
what these people represent it as saying.

Actually, Yeshua in the next few verses following this statement instructs his
talmidim to request and subsist on community support:

Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor lesser coin in your belts. Pack not for
the journey, either two coats, or sandals, or a staff, for the laborer is worthy
of his food. And into whatever city or town you will enter, enquire who in it is
honorable, and there abide until you go out from there."
(Mt. 10:9-11)

Some light on this text may be acquired by examining a statement by Josephus
concerning the first century Essene sect of Judaism:

...and if any of their sect come from other places,
what they have lies open for them, just as if it were their own;
and they go into such as they never knew before,
as if they had been ever so long acquainted with them.
For which reason they carry nothing with them
when they travel into remote parts,
though still they take their weapons with them, for fear
of thieves. Accordingly
there is, in every city where they live,
one appointed particularly to take care of strangers,
and provide garments and other necessaries for them.
(Josephus; Wars 2:8:4)

Yeshua's talmidim had for the most part, come from an Essene back ground. It
would appear that they were therefore able to travel within Essene circles from
town to town without having to carry additional supplies.

Yeshua felt that his twelve were entitled to be supported by the community.
Yeshua drives the point home saying "the laborer is worthy of his food." A
saying which Paul later cites to prove that "those who labor in the word and its
teaching" are worthy of "double honor" which in context seems to indicate that
they have the right, like any other laborer, to expect to be paid for their work
in the ministry. In fact he even quoted this statement by Yeshua (Mt. 10:10) to
support the point:

Those elders who conduct themselves well
should be esteemed worthy of double honor,
especially those who labor in the word and
in teaching, For the Scripture says that
`you should not muzzle the ox, while threshing,' (Deut. 25:4)
and `the laborer is worthy of his wage." (Mt. 10:10)
(1Tim. 5:17-18)

Paul also expands on this thought in 1Cor. 9:6-14:

Also, I only, and Bar Nabba, have we not the power not to work?
Who is this who labors in the service (ministry) by the
expanse of his nefesh?
Or who is he who plants a vineyard and from its fruit does not eat?
Or who is he who tends the flock and from the milk of his
flock does not eat?
Do I say these [things] as a son of man?
Behold, the Torah also said these [things]. For it is
written in the Torah of Moshe,
`You shall not muzzle the ox that threshes.' (Deut. 25:4)
It is a concern to Eloah about oxen? But, it is known
that because of us he said [it] and because of us it was written, because it is
a need [that] the plowman plow unto hope and he who threshes, unto the hope of
the harvest. If we have sown spiritual [things] among you, is it a great [thing]
if we reap
[things] of the flesh from you? … those who labor [in]
the Beit Kodesh [the Temple] are sustained from the Beit Kodesh and those who
labor for the alter have a portion with the alter?
So also, our Adon commanded that those who are proclaiming his goodnews should
live from his goodnews."
(1Cor. 9:6-14)

Certainly the context of Yeshua's statement "for nothing you have received, for
nothing you will give." (Mt. 10:8) was that of a society in which all things
were held in common and each person's needs were taken care of by that community
(Mt. 10:9-11 and Acts 2:44 & 4:32) but we do not live in such a society, and so
citing Mt. 10:8 to those in the ministry today, is akin to asking us to make
bricks without straw.

To the contrary Paul quotes the verse shortly afterward (10:10) to reach a
principle by which those who are proclaiming his goodnews
should be supported for doing so, just as those who labor in the Temple and for
the alter are supported for doing so. In other words, Paul draws a midrash from
the fact that Levites and Priests received tithes and offerings to teach a
principle that "those who labor in the word and teach" should be supported with
tithes and offerings.

The International Nazarene Beit Din finds that "selling the Word for profit" is
not a transgression of the Torah, and therefore not a "sin". This charge is
therefore dismissed.

On the charge of "BREAKING THE SABBATH" the International Nazarene Beit Din
finds that the fact that Lew White's business partner insists on working on the
Sabbath in a business which Lew does not have controlling interest in, does not
constitute "breaking the sabbath". Moreover the accuser(s) have not shown that,
had Lew White broken the Sabbath" that they are in any way victims of that sin,
and therefore they would be without standing to bring such a charge. A charge
of breaking the sabbath would normally originate from the leadership through the
Beit Din itself.

On the charge of "PROMOTION OF IDOLS" the accuser(s) have cited only passages
against idolatry itself, not the promotion of idols. However the Beit Din will
acknowledge

that Deut. 13 would also forbid the promotion of Torah transgression. The
accuser(s) however have failed to show that Lew White has promoted any act of
idolatry. Moreover accusers have failed to show that had Lew White been guilty
on this charge, that accuser(s) would have had status as victims of this sin,
thus they would not have had standing to bring the charge. A charge of
promoting idols would normally originate from the leadership through the Beit
Din itself.

On the charge of "PROMOTION OF... INCENSE" accusers cite Exo 30:9; Num 16:35,40.
These passages only forbid the offering of strange incense before YHWH in the
Temple.

The accuser(s) have failed to show that the Torah makes a general prohibition
against the promotion of incense in general.

On the charge of PROMOTION OF... DRUG PARAPHERNALIA accusers found themselves
unable to cite any Torah passage to support this charge and so switched this
charge in their body to "Pharmakeia". The word
"Pharmakeia" is a Greek word not found in the Torah. Instead accusers cited
passages from the Ketuvim Netzarm which in their Greek translations, condemn
"Pharmakeia" (Gal 5:19-20; Rev 9:21, Rev 21:8; Rev 22:15). Where the Greek has
PHARMAKEIA in these verses the Aramaic has various forms of CHARASHUTA
"sorcery". "Pharmakeia"
refers to forms of sorcery that involved the use of drugs (potions). There is
some question as to whether the Aramaic CHARSHUTA has this same connotation. In
any case neither Paul nor Yochanan could create new Torah, so they could only
have refereed back to a practice forbidden by Torah. This would therefore
reference the following from the Torah:

10: There shall not be found among you any one that
maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire,
or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an
enchanter, or a witch,
11: Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits,
or a wizard, or a necromancer.
12: For all that do these things are an abomination unto
the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy
God doth drive them out from before thee.
(Deut. 18:10-12 KJV)

one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire,
or that useth divination,
or an observer of times,
or an enchanter,
or a witch,
Or a charmer,
or a consulter with familiar spirits,
or a wizard,
or a necromancer.

One that uses divination, literally "divines divination"

KOSEM K'SAMIM

"Observer of times" M'ONEN from the Hebrew word for "cloud" refers to one who
reads the future in the shapes of clouds.

"Enchanter" NAWCHASH from Hebrew: NAWCHAWSH meaning

"serpent". One who performs "magic" through consulting the Serpent HA-SATAN.

"Witch" KASHAF (also in Ex. 22:18) one whose "spells" were the result of prayers
articulated to false gods.

"Charmer" KHOVER one who cast spells by tying magic knots.

"Consulter with familiar spirits" SHAUL OV one who asks questions of the python.

"Wizards" YIDONI literally "knower" always used to refers to followers of false
gods.

"necromancer" DORESH HA-M'TIM literally "interrogator of the dead".

In the end the Beit Din concludes that the Torah transgression referenced in the
word "Pharmikia" is an act of sorcery, with the use of drugs or potions being
just part of that sorcery.

We find that the accuser(s) have failed to show that Lew White has promoted any
act of sorcery as forbidden by the Torah. We also find that the accuser(s) have
failed to show that even had Lew White been guilty of "Pharmikia" that they
would have the victim status needed to bring the charge themselves.

On the charge of "PROMOTION OF... ROCK MUSIC" accusers themselves have admitted
that there is "[n]o direct Torah Command against it." We find the blanket
statement "many Scriptures collectively condemn everything rock music involves"
to be to far reaching and without merit.

On the charge of "USING EVIL MEANS FOR GOOD" we find that this charge stands or
falls upon the other charges.

In conclusion we the International Nazarene Beit Din find Lew White NOT GUILTYon all charges brought by “Bob Field and many others that work on [his] team"

Further more we find that “Bob Field and many others that work on [his] team" have failed to show that they even have the victim status required in order for them to bring charges against Lew White in the first place.

Finally we find “Bob Field and many others that work on [his] team" guilty of Lashon HaRa (Wicked Speech) and Motzi Shem Ra (Slander).

Replies to This Discussion

Part of this post is very much relevant to something I have just been questioning, and that is Deuteronomy chapter 18. That's kind of neat =). Seems like Yahuwah may be confirming my ideas by you posting about this.

Now that Lew White's actions have been cleared, can we look forward to having drug PARAPHERNALIA, and other products of his head shop on Lew's WEB page for sale, along with Bibles and literature?

I note the made-up rule that one must be a victim before bringing a charge. This immediately rules out idolatry and Sabbath-breaking, since there is no victim on earth for such crimes. Yet the prophets spoke against sabbath-breaking, while not being direct victims of it. Likewise, Nathan was no victim of David's sin, but he brought it forth anyway. Nehemiah was no victim, nor was he a prophet, but he spoke directly to Sabbath-breakers with vigor.

If victim hood is the only basis for making a charge, then Sabbath-breaking and other sins will run amok. I think you know this.

Therefore, your made-up premise of victim hood is false. The Messianic ethic which you cite is specifically for cases of victim hood, and not mean to define the only case where charges are brought forth.

You are a fake and a phony, just like Lew White. Your names are now mud.

I am saving this ruling of yours as the perfect example of Pharisaical foolishness and mental gymnastics in our time.

PS: I have been to Lew White's store 3 times, each time to tell him directly of his error. All 3 times he was out. The happy, light-enhanced photos on his WEB page in no way conveys the dark evil spirit immediately discerned upon entering the place. There is much in the photo collection that you do not see.

I am willing to give Lew time to repent and rebuild, but for him to publish religious literature at the same time ... it is high-handed hypocrisy.

If a spouse is unsaved, they are still sanctified by the believing spouse. But this does not extend to an unsaved business partner.

1Co 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the assembly of Elohim:

I have a few questions. I saw the website in question and the one thing there that did raise an eyebrow was the alleged photo shopping of the property on which his institute resides. The signs appear to have been altered.I would like Mr.White to address that if he could. Also, would not the "victims" in this situation be anyone who financially supported the organization? I'm not trying to prolong this issue, but this seems to me to be two issues not adequately addressed.

Shouldn't he just sell his portion to a gentile then pay his tithe? Really, making part of one's living from the sale of idols and the means of corrupting youth, as Avram's brother & father did, can hardly a construed as decent. My memory is telling me that Avram took care of the matter, as referenced in the Upright Book. (Pardon my mind if it doesn't say he destroyed them all.)
As an escapee by the favor of Yahweh from the drug culture in a time when these kind of shops originated, it would seem that a Nazorean would be self-compelled with guilt to unload his stash.www.JacksonSnyder.org

Lew's non-controlling interest in this store has been for sale since 1991.

Dr. Jackson H. Snyder said:

Shouldn't he just sell his portion to a gentile then pay his tithe? Really, making part of one's living from the sale of idols and the means of corrupting youth, as Avram's brother & father did, can hardly a construed as decent. My memory is telling me that Avram took care of the matter, as referenced in the Upright Book. (Pardon my mind if it doesn't say he destroyed them all.) As an escapee by the favor of Yahweh from the drug culture in a time when these kind of shops originated, it would seem that a Nazorean would be self-compelled with guilt to unload his stash.www.JacksonSnyder.org

I don't think that would make one a victim, I think Lew has done great work and the Scripture says that no man is without sin. In this case we simply found that Lew was not guilty of the Torah transgressions stipulated in the "attack" (Mr. Field's own word). At any rate Mr. Field made no claim to having victim status.

Ya'akov ben Shalom said:

I have a few questions. I saw the website in question and the one thing there that did raise an eyebrow was the alleged photo shopping of the property on which his institute resides. The signs appear to have been altered.I would like Mr.White to address that if he could. Also, would not the "victims" in this situation be anyone who financially supported the organization? I'm not trying to prolong this issue, but this seems to me to be two issues not adequately addressed.

It its drawn directly from the words of Messiah when He says "If anyone sin AGAINST YOU..." in Matthew 18:15. It was not simply "made up". It does not prohibit Sabbath breaking or idolatry charges, but those must be brought by the leadership itself through the Beit Din, typically by the Av Bait Din.

However even if Mr. Fields had shown victim status, it does not appear that Mr. White was guilty of any actual transgression of the Torah, at least not the ones Mr. Field's accused him of.

I understand that Lew does not have controlling interest in the store (which means he cannot stipulate what is sold there so long as it is legal) and cannot legally walk away without paying off the large store debt. His interest in the store has been for sale since 1991 (he cannot legally sell for less than the debt of the store) So what would you have him do?

We simply found that Lew was not guilty of the Torah violations he was accused of, in many cases he was accused of supposed Torah transgressions that do not even exist.

Michael A. Banak said:

Who is on the Beit Dein?

Now that Lew White's actions have been cleared, can we look forward to having drug PARAPHERNALIA, and other products of his head shop on Lew's WEB page for sale, along with Bibles and literature?

I note the made-up rule that one must be a victim before bringing a charge. This immediately rules out idolatry and Sabbath-breaking, since there is no victim on earth for such crimes. Yet the prophets spoke against sabbath-breaking, while not being direct victims of it. Likewise, Nathan was no victim of David's sin, but he brought it forth anyway. Nehemiah was no victim, nor was he a prophet, but he spoke directly to Sabbath-breakers with vigor.

If victim hood is the only basis for making a charge, then Sabbath-breaking and other sins will run amok. I think you know this.

Therefore, your made-up premise of victim hood is false. The Messianic ethic which you cite is specifically for cases of victim hood, and not mean to define the only case where charges are brought forth.

You are a fake and a phony, just like Lew White. Your names are now mud.

I am saving this ruling of yours as the perfect example of Pharisaical foolishness and mental gymnastics in our time.

Well you did take the correct first step... bring it to Lew. So now what would you have Lew do?
He has non-controlling interest in the store (meaning he does not control it).
He cannot legally walk away without paying of the large store debt (which he does not have).
He has had his interest in the store for sale since 1991, but has found no buyers).
Lew concludes that whether he likes it or not, YHWH wants him in that store witnessing to "Hippies".

Michael A. Banak said:

PS: I have been to Lew White's store 3 times, each time to tell him directly of his error. All 3 times he was out. The happy, light-enhanced photos on his WEB page in no way conveys the dark evil spirit immediately discerned upon entering the place. There is much in the photo collection that you do not see.

I am willing to give Lew time to repent and rebuild, but for him to publish religious literature at the same time ... it is high-handed hypocrisy.

If a spouse is unsaved, they are still sanctified by the believing spouse. But this does not extend to an unsaved business partner.

1Co 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the assembly of Elohim:

I do not believe "idols" are for sale in the store, but I repeat, Lew does not have controlling interest in the store. It would be like charging someone with distributing pornography because they owned stock in the Marriot corporation (which has pay-per-view porn in their rooms), only in this case Lew has had his interest for sales since 1991 and cannot walk away without paying off the large store debt.

Dr. Jackson H. Snyder said:

Shouldn't he just sell his portion to a gentile then pay his tithe? Really, making part of one's living from the sale of idols and the means of corrupting youth, as Avram's brother & father did, can hardly a construed as decent. My memory is telling me that Avram took care of the matter, as referenced in the Upright Book. (Pardon my mind if it doesn't say he destroyed them all.) As an escapee by the favor of Yahweh from the drug culture in a time when these kind of shops originated, it would seem that a Nazorean would be self-compelled with guilt to unload his stash.www.JacksonSnyder.org

James,
If indeed the photographs have been altered as is alleged, then Mr.White would indeed have transgressed Torah through deception. Again, I'm not trying to keep this issue alive or cast aspersions on him, but that issue was not addressed. Further, I don't understand how those who have contributed financially could not be considered victims if indeed deception was employed. That in itself is designed to victimize. Why did the Beit Din not address the totality of the allegations rather than those pieces that perhaps are easier to dismiss? To my knowledge Mr.White has yet to explain why the photographs are clearly not "kosher", if you'll pardon the expression.